Bears repeating!
Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.
Also, let’s stick closely to topic, it really helps preventing tangents and drama.
Last edited:
What do y'all think about the Balenciaga SS23 & Adidas collab "teddy" controversy?
- Thread starter MooMooVT
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
@HAZE MAT, I may not agree with all of your points above, but I welcome your point of view. I agree think that the US is a very different market than Europe, and I think the Balenciaga decision makers should have done much more in the way of vetting this campaign. As I posted earlier. I do see the irony in the visuals, and I felt that the ad itself had artistic merit. But, that was almost irrelevant, as for many, the juxtaposition was a bridge too far. Thank you for providing context to the office ad; I’ve really only seen the child with the bear.
OT, but in answer, one of my favorite fashion sources is owned and run by a woman who has become a friend: Song in Vienna. She curates what I consider more artistic and avant garde fashion in an art fashion concept store. While I’ve admired some balenciaga fashion, it was always too louche and ironic for me to carry with any aplomb.
Loewe RTW and some Spanish designers might be interesting but I don’t know much about them. Courreges is nice, but limited and a throw back to its archives.
ETA: Im not equipped to debate Demna‘s talent; I differ from you in that I think he should be fired, not simply bc his ad campaign is so offensive to the US Market, but bc he could not calibrate to that market and adjust accordingly. I also blame the executives who approved it. This storm could have easily been foreseen. kering seems to misstep more than Richmont group these days, and during Covid, the US and Asian markets grew exponentially, so I don’t think it’s a stretch to have the ad campaigns align with the top markets.
Last edited:
Me too! Stuffed animal tail. This seems to have all the makings of a modern day witch hunt!
I immediately saw a tipped over Barney but that may also just speak to the generation I’m from
That’s the thing, we all see things through the experiences and perspectives that are unique to us. This ad seems to be no different.
I think @V0N1B2 ’s post shared your POVI immediately saw a tipped over Barney but that may also just speak to the generation I’m from
That’s the thing, we all see things through the experiences and perspectives that are unique to us. This ad seems to be no different.
I heard about the campaign and thus did not want to observe the pictures at length or give it much thought. What bothered me more was that the ad quoted the Supreme Court case U.S.v. Williams. In short, the conservative justice Scalia wrote that virtual pornographic images of children are protected under the First Amendment if it does not “involve harms to children.” Of course, my hero, Ruth Badger Ginsberg strongly dissented.
So Balenciaga knew exactly what it was doing by printing these pictures and intentionally produced virtual pornographic images of children and reminded the American public that they were within their rights under the 1st AmendmenT.
So Balenciaga knew exactly what it was doing by printing these pictures and intentionally produced virtual pornographic images of children and reminded the American public that they were within their rights under the 1st AmendmenT.
Last edited:
Yeah, anyone acting like that case was coincidentally included has got to be kidding. While I wasn’t originally bothered by the whole thing, when I read about the case being in the stack of papers I was like “eww ok they made this purposely creepy.”
For people who want more info on the Supreme Court case US v Williams (2006)
www.mtsu.edu
The main argument, if I understood correctly, was if someone offered child porn to someone else even though he didn’t actually possess it, is he free to say it? In other words, was it illegal to say you had child porn even though you didn’t physically possess such illegal contraband. The original court said it’s not protected free speech, was repealed and then Supreme Court came back in and settled it and said that it was not protected free speech,
Interesting is the dissenting opinion by Souter and Ginsberg. They say that it undermines free speech. The case that is really disturbing (imho) is the Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition where it was determined virtual child porn is ok bc no real children are involved. Maybe that’s too simplified. They argue that it shouldn’t be illegal for someone who just looks underage to be involved in pornographic material
supreme.justia.com
Please excuse and correct any misinterpretation on my behalf. I am not a lawyer.
United States v. Williams (2008)
The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld a provision of a federal child pornography law that makes it a crimes to advertise, promote or present child pornography even if the underlying material does not qualify. In United States v. Williams, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge that the law...
www.mtsu.edu
The main argument, if I understood correctly, was if someone offered child porn to someone else even though he didn’t actually possess it, is he free to say it? In other words, was it illegal to say you had child porn even though you didn’t physically possess such illegal contraband. The original court said it’s not protected free speech, was repealed and then Supreme Court came back in and settled it and said that it was not protected free speech,
Interesting is the dissenting opinion by Souter and Ginsberg. They say that it undermines free speech. The case that is really disturbing (imho) is the Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition where it was determined virtual child porn is ok bc no real children are involved. Maybe that’s too simplified. They argue that it shouldn’t be illegal for someone who just looks underage to be involved in pornographic material
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: If speech is neither obscene nor child pornography, it is protected from attempts to categorically suppress child pornography even if it is related to it. Statutes that are overly broad in defining what speech is suppressed are unconstitutional.
supreme.justia.com
Please excuse and correct any misinterpretation on my behalf. I am not a lawyer.
For people who want more info on the Supreme Court case US v Williams (2006)
United States v. Williams (2008)
The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld a provision of a federal child pornography law that makes it a crimes to advertise, promote or present child pornography even if the underlying material does not qualify. In United States v. Williams, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge that the law...
The main argument, if I understood correctly, was if someone offered child porn to someone else even though he didn’t actually possess it, is he free to say it? In other words, was it illegal to say you had child porn even though you didn’t physically possess such illegal contraband. The original court said it’s not protected free speech, was repealed and then Supreme Court came back in and settled it and said that it was not protected free speech,
Interesting is the dissenting opinion by Souter and Ginsberg. They say that it undermines free speech. The case that is really disturbing (imho) is the Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition where it was determined virtual child porn is ok bc no real children are involved. Maybe that’s too simplified. They argue that it shouldn’t be illegal for someone who just looks underage to be involved in pornographic material
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: If speech is neither obscene nor child pornography, it is protected from attempts to categorically suppress child pornography even if it is related to it. Statutes that are overly broad in defining what speech is suppressed are unconstitutional.
Please excuse and correct any misinterpretation on my behalf. I am not a lawyer.
@haute okole @mrsinsyder ^Again, as discussed earlier in the thread, the legal documents imagery was not in the bear ad campaign, though the original NY Post garbled that.
Yes, it is a very complicated read, even for attorneys. Scalia was in the majority in this opinion and upheld the First Amendment with regard to child porn when a child is not harmed. That is the actual effect the law has. The fact scenario is Not explained well by the author of this opinion, who was Scalia. The case upholds that child pornography violates the First Amendment when a child is harmed, but Scalia said, under this fact scenario, Williams‘ type of child pornography is PROTECTED under the First Amendment. I was mistaken, Souter and RBG, dissented and said Child Pornography should not be protected speech under the First Amendment.
Last edited:
I know it wasn’t; to me it speaks to an undercurrent throughout their recent advertising that I find… icky.
I was unaware that they were not on the actual campaign. I apologize for the confusion. I was only made aware of US v Williams case from the news.
I only read a few blurbs, but see @haute okole ’s post above #570 quoting Souter, and I believe coming to the opposite conclusion As above.For people who want more info on the Supreme Court case US v Williams (2006)
United States v. Williams (2008)
The Supreme Court in 2008 upheld a provision of a federal child pornography law that makes it a crimes to advertise, promote or present child pornography even if the underlying material does not qualify. In United States v. Williams, the Court rejected a First Amendment challenge that the law...
The main argument, if I understood correctly, was if someone offered child porn to someone else even though he didn’t actually possess it, is he free to say it? In other words, was it illegal to say you had child porn even though you didn’t physically possess such illegal contraband. The original court said it’s not protected free speech, was repealed and then Supreme Court came back in and settled it and said that it was not protected free speech,
Interesting is the dissenting opinion by Souter and Ginsberg. They say that it undermines free speech. The case that is really disturbing (imho) is the Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition where it was determined virtual child porn is ok bc no real children are involved. Maybe that’s too simplified. They argue that it shouldn’t be illegal for someone who just looks underage to be involved in pornographic material
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition: If speech is neither obscene nor child pornography, it is protected from attempts to categorically suppress child pornography even if it is related to it. Statutes that are overly broad in defining what speech is suppressed are unconstitutional.
Please excuse and correct any misinterpretation on my behalf. I am not a lawyer.
Scalias majority opinion was that an offer to exchange child pornography is not a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. Thus, upholding the constitutionality of the federal statute prohibiting the pandering of child pornography (the statute does not violate the first amendment). Or, in other words, child porn is not protected speech. Scalia was a strict constitutionalist, and the decision was based on the general principle that there is no First Amendment protection for offers to engage in illegal transactions.
The problem was that in keeping with prior child porn case, Ashcroft (that ruled a prior child porn statute was overly broad and did violate the First Amend ent), an offer to receive virtual child porn or simulated child porn is protected under the First Amendment. Scalia‘s exception, in accordance with Ashcroft, was that virtual pornography is protected free speech as it’s not harmful to the child.
Souter and Ginsberg dissented bc all child pornography is intrinsically harmful. . . which is the crux of the quote below and of NY vs. Ferber. In fact, Souter warned that this decision (based on no trigger of the concern for child safety over first amendment protection) would be problematic in many ways beyond porn.
"The tension with existing constitutional law is obvious," Souter wrote. " Free Speech Coalition reaffirmed that nonobscene virtual pornographic images are protected, because they fail to trigger the concern for child safety that disentitles child pornography to First Amendment protection." He also warned that the decision "might have an unsettling
significance well beyond the subject of child pornography." In Free Speech Coalition, the Court had ruled that that virtual pornography did not involve the same harms to children as pornography involving real children. This distinguished it from New York v. Ferber (1982), in which the Court had justified a child pornography exception to the First Amendment's broad free speech protections based on actual harm to The child
@mrsinsyder , as per Scalia the crime of child porn = when the speaker intends the listener that the subject depicts real children. Scalia actually reasoned that with virtual porn, (computer generated or animated) no real child was harmed.
ETA: I find constit law very dry, so may have missed an important point, so i would welcome correction lol
Last edited:
I’m trying to understand what type of child pornography wouldn’t be harmful to the child. I’m guessing it would be stuff that isn’t actual pornography (since that would inherently be harmful).
That is what RBG and the other dissenter believed, child pornography is inherently harmful to children. NY v. FERBER, the foundational case re: child pornography and the First Amendment. I hope this Balenciaga case brings to light this wierd Williams carve out and the current Supreme Court revisits and reverses Williams. Then something good will come out of this controversy.